⟵ Return to index
Related Gates: pfizertaggate
vintage cheese 🧀🧀🧀 once you realise that there is no biological reason for different codon optimisations to produce the exact same protein... you realise that it allows the manufacturers to tag any person that has had their product. #taggate #pfizertaggate https://twitter.com/jikkykjj/status/1472110381803847684
don't believe me? it's already published. except good luck finding it on pubmed.gov by the author name of castruita... you have to put in samaniego or remember the pubmed id. i'm sure it's just a "formatting error" 😉#taggate pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36647776/
for the record these are the genbank idsncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/ok1208…
bear in mind that that this was performed on rna sequencing, not directed pcr. pcr is much more sensitive, you just need the right primers. so as long as the genome sequence of each vaccine is known (which it is), you can detect it in serum - for weeks.
which leads to a creepy consequence: you're tagged. as long as there is vaccine mrna in your system (at least 2 months but could be longer) your tag can be identified by specific pcr which does not cross-react between moderna, pfizer and #sarscov2 virus
which provides two scenarios (there might be more): firstly, these companies can identify whether you are "using" their product. think it was free? well, only as long as they decide it's free and as long as they can't detect it.... but you can trust these companies, right?
remember monsanto went to extreme lengths to bankrupt and destroy farmers by genomic testing of crops that were on land farmed by farmers that refused to use their products. but once they identified the genomic tag, they claimed ownershiphttps://twitter.com/jikkykjj/status/1482594585457336320
sure, it's theoretical to apply this to humans but there seems to be a lot of "theories" that are being played out. secondly, there is an equally sinister problem... remember this? https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1613114836086591489
well - imagine that you had control of all the pcr samples in a study where the only outcome that was better was the pcr result... and you just needed to know which samples came from each group in order to "process" them in a specific wayarkmedic.substack.com/p/dont-be-arrs…
but if you unblinded the sample ids (to see who got vaccine vs placebo) that unblinding would be recorded in the clinical trials database and everyone would know.. so maybe you just needed a different method to find out which sample id belonged to each group...
and then you could perhaps put the samples on different machines or run them at different pcr ct thresholds. and if you ran samples at very low ct thresholds you would only pick up a handful of cases..
whilst the other group would be collecting cases at the expected rate. in fact, if you *could* do this your chart might look something like this epitome of scientific perfection:
well, obviously they couldn't do this because there was no way that the same lab that analysed the pcr tests was the same lab that had the serology samples from the participants - because the @nejm and irb would have identified that as a red flag wouldn't they? ahem...
so we have the company that made the product, testing the product and testing the effect of the product with no oversight and a defined pathway to change the likelihood that a result would be positive in their treated group. lucky they are super honest though, right?#taggate
and not only do pfizer still hold the record for a criminal fine for healthcare fraud, but - in what could be cnn's only ever true news report - they got a friend to take the rap. no, i'm not kidding. archive.is/rnsbo
#taggate #pfizertaggate@iambrookjackson @jjcouey @kevin_mckernan @wtyl_live @canceledmouse @banounhelene @tatiann69922625 @daoyu15 @adhesionsorg @boriquagato @maples46014332 @chrismartenson@threadreaderapp unroll
Related Gates: pfizergate
this raises a very important question that relates to freedom of speech in the public interest. in australia this has been looked at before. it's a big problem. governments hate free speech because they hate their corruption being shown up. alrc.gov.au/publication/tr… https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618794581822423040
so let's take an extreme example. someone on twitter puts out a tweet that says "i have solid information that corporation x has contaminated the water in brisbane" the person makes the disclosure in good faith.
in australia, where the disclosure is made, it would be protected under the public interest disclosure act - provided it is made in good faith (outside of this, other offences might apply) other countries do not have this specific law...legislation.gov.au/details/c2013a…
however it is clearly in the public interest to have whistleblowers (or even lay members of the public) able to freely express safety concerns. @erinbrockovich famously
yet those corporations with unlimited budgets have unlimited power to suppress any public spotlight on their toxicity - hexavalent chromium and pfoa yesterday, lnp-mrna today. do you think it's ok to do this?
so the question is - if an employee of a "public square" organisation suppresses public interest disclosures on behalf of corporations or governments, without the credentials to do so, did they commit a crime? did they endanger the public?
which is why the new @project_veritas #pfizergate story is so important. it doesn't matter what role "jordon" played in the corporation. what matters is that the corporation was able to quash the story within 12 hours. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618790037109489664
and by the same token, the suppression of genuine scientific and medical accounts raising safety concerns during 2020-2022 has led to people being fooled or coerced into taking a drug that resulted in their death. many deaths. bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
all these twitter accounts were suspended in a coordinated purge to silence warnings about the rollout of a drug that has the highest rate of reported death of any known preventative medicine. so who ordered the purge?@elonmusk knows.
yet the suppression hasn't stopped - this account is still being shadowbanned which means that you wouldn't have seen the #taggate thread yesterday. so you wouldn't know how the corporations got those fantastic (in the literal sense) results. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552
the flip side to this is that we also don't want dangerous disinformation to prevail. the answer to "disinformation" though is not suppression and gatekeeping - it is better information. if the price of that is that even "crazy people" get to have their say, so what?
because one thing that history has told us again and again: suppression of speech leads inevitably to totalitarianism, whichever label (fascism, communism, marxism) you want to put on it. and #democide is always the result. always. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1601459016475246593
more cheese🧀🧀#cardboardmds it's not difficult to substantiate an md whose cv said he was a urology resident before dumping it and moving *back* to pharma. pubmed is *very* specific on an author search. "jordon" is unusual. 4 papers - all urology.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=walker%2…
which perfectly corroborates @brianosheaspi's summary of his cv herebrianoshea.substack.com/p/who-is-jordo…
with the timing showing that he went from iqvia (yes that iqvia) into medical school at around 2014, likely produced his first paper as a med student in 2016 and was fast tracked through - i suspect funded by iqvia.
remember that iqvia were the data collaborator for the az covid vaccine study and have their fingers in all the #bigpharma pies. their specialty is "data synthesis". make of that what you will. iqvia.com/about-us
@iqvia_global were also in charge of the covidshield #hydroxychloroquine study from which they never released the data. where is it?archive.is/nwnlh
so this looks like a #cardboardmd - someone who was sponsored through med school by #bigpharma in order to take up a role in a pharma company acting as a "real md" to beef up their acceptability to the public and other doctors.
like this paper here - half of the authors were "pfizer mds". just like jordon. remember this paper? the one that gave perfect results? with just one problem...
all the samples were processed at pearl river where they could tag blood samples from the same patients so they could see which group they were in. the result - of course - was predetermined.#taggate@chrismartenson @fynnderella1 👇👇👇👇https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552
Related Gates: pfizergate
breaking stinky cheese🧀🧀 🧀 an excellent analysis by @joshg99 and @openvaet of the missing local pcr tests in the pfizer "trial". just one really important bit of information to add... there were 207 missing local pcr tests (p<0.0001). @iambrookjackson @chrismartenson
this is the substack that is a must-read. the 207 number requires just one more step. it's really important.openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbionte…
every person who was symptomatic should have had a central test and a local test. the infamous pfizer "95% prevention of infection" was a farce. but how did they do it? the clue was here. it was a marker. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1535470923314528256
only the central tests were used in the @nejm paper and the submission to the @us_fda who approved the drug the very next day. as if they *knew* what the result of the trial was going to be.
but if the trial was genuine, there should have been no difference in the number of tests sent both to the central lab and to the local lab. bear in mind that if you had symptoms your central test was not to be used clinically. everybody should have had a local test...
but as is typical for people, not everybody does what they should. however, the vaccine and placebo arms both sent central tests in at the same rate, showing that they didn't behave that differently (p=non-significant)
yet there was a very significant (p=0.000055 probability of happening by chance) difference in the rates of local tests being recorded in the database for the vaccine arm in fact the vaccine arm reported local tests at a 13.3% lower rate
now you have to take that rate drop and apply it to the original number of participants that reported symptoms and sent in a central test, to adjust for the less-than-half testing rate. 1558*0.133 ==> 207 vaccine patients missing in the local testing group well, well...
by how many patients did pfizer claim to have seen a benefit in their trial? 162 vs 8, gave you a "95% reduction in pcr positive symptomatic disease. so 154 patients "benefited". or did they? there were up to 207 missing patients in this exact group.nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
therefore every single patient who supposedly was saved from "covid" by the pfizer vaccine appears to have been accounted for by the number of patients not registered as having a local pcr test, even though the groups were testing centrally at the same rate.
and of course the central test results couldn't possibly have been "adjusted" could they? i mean, pfizer - who were performing them - didn't have any idea whose sample was whose... did they?#taggate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552
and just to confirm that there was in fact almost certainly no difference in infection rates between the groups... if you haven't read this great independent work from @phillyharper it's definitely worth a read (and a subscription).philharper.substack.com/p/a-public-ver…
so.. the question that should be being asked of pfizer is: "where are those 207 local pcr test results?"@aaronsirisg @barneslaw @barnes_law#taggate #pfizergate
breaking... #taggate may become a reality in time, but for now @kevin_mckernan has cleverly produced an assay that allows pathologists to identify *which* vaccine mrna is present in tumour tissues. this could support some huge lawsuits anandamide.substack.com/p/can-qpcr-dif…
some history for #taggate https://twitter.com/jikkykjj/status/1472110381803847684?t=ds5ad1y1esg5rw71bfxtqa&s=19
more history of #taggate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552?t=ds5ad1y1esg5rw71bfxtqa&s=19
there are two aspects to #taggate. one is that people who took these therapies may have transient or permanent gene signatures detectable by pcr. the other is that pfizer and moderna knew which samples were from each group in their "trials"https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1633937934712999936?t=ds5ad1y1esg5rw71bfxtqa&s=19
Related Gates: coptigate, novagate, soapgate
whoa! 🧀🧀🧀 novavax's patent sequence coding for their "non-genetic vaccine" is different from every other sars-cov-2 spike protein sequence (wuhan, pfizer, moderna). #novagate just joined #taggate there is only one explanation. thread.🧵
sequence 35 in the novavax patent (mx473662.1) is the dna sequence coding for the wuhan spike (with the pp mutation common to all the mrna vaccines). it only matches 73%. it should be 99%+. there is no reason to codon optimise for a protein vaccine. freepatentsonline.com/y2021/0228709.…
what that means: when coding for a viral protein, they should use the same rna sequence as the virus. they changed the rna sequence but produce the exact same protein. pfizer did too, so did moderna. it was partially covered in #coptigate but there is more to it. @eh_den
there is no need to change the gene sequence for a protein based vaccine. and if they were going to do it, they could have copied pfizer's or moderna's. they didn't - they created their own. overnight. here are the matches - 85% to both. enough for pcr to differentiate.
i'll repeat. there is no reason to do this from a scientific viewpoint. they said they were making a protein vaccine. but the protein sequence was identical. moderna, pfizer, novavax - 100% match on amino acid sequence, only 85% match on rna sequence.
note there was one tiny change for novavax. they changed the furin cleavage site from rrar (active) to qqaq (inactive). but that was it. so the final product has 3 amino acids different from pfizer and moderna. and **572** nucleotides different. for a protein vaccine?
i said at the start of this thread that there was only one explanation. and it is very insidious. because there is no need to codon optimise your spike protein if you are just producing a protein. #coptigate
the purpose of codon optimisation (changing the rna code without changing the amino acid sequence) was supposed to be to get the most protein produced in the human body's cells, to induce the most antibody. it was a lie, by the way.
both pfizer and moderna said they created their rna code overnight. they could have done this with the viral rna code. but to codon optimise it (change it) would have required weeks or months of testing. they must have known months before. businessinsider.com/pfizer-biontec…
the only explanation for pfizer and moderna to have a markedly different rna code for their vaccines... is so they can claim patent rights, because pcr can tell you which one you had. this is #taggate they are already fighting.blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2023/01/12/cov…
but novavax should have had nothing to do with this, because they produced a protein based vaccine. or so they said. the only way it would matter would be if their patented (and identifiable) gene sequence were to end up in the recipient of the vaccine.
which until yesterday was thought not to be possible. now, it is. the #novagate thread describes how the presence of saponin was unnecessary and is a transfectant medium - a chemical used for gene therapy. not required for a protein vaccine. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1692456846072942775
and now we have a transfectant present in the novavax vaccine, and a patented, identifiable gene sequence that - if it wasn't properly removed (as we now know pfizer didn't remove theirs) - could turn novavax into a genetic vaccine. @kevin_mckernan @fluoridepoison
but i'm sure it was all just accidental. #taggate #novagate #soapgate arkmedic.substack.com/p/who-owns-who
additional src: novavax's full patent document archived here with some more perfect westerns for the record. t.me/jikkyleaks/941
more information on the contents of novavax at @fluoridepoison's substack here geoffpain.substack.com/p/novavax-pref…